UN chief ‘losing sleep’ over issue of symphysiotomy
About 1,500 women were subjected to the procedure — symphysiotomy — on the grounds it would increase the probability of them having more children when compared to a caesarian section, while some had their bones broken just after a section.
Revelations in a report about the practice shocked the leading expert in human rights and former UN special reporter on torture, Nigel Rodley, who said it was keeping him awake at night since hearing of it.
He told Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald the State needed to consider taking responsibility for its failings on the issue at the end of a two-day hearing in Geneva on how Ireland was up-holding the UN’s Covenant on Human Rights.
He linked this practice, the way unmarried mothers were treated, mother and baby homes, and child abuse to the Catholic Church ethos that dominated the State at the time.
Described by some committee members as an experiment, Mr Rodley was critical that the State’s reaction so far was limited to finding a “material response”.
This mirrored objections of survivors, who want the State to admit responsibility. Most have rejected the payments that require them to waive their right to further challenge the issue.
The Irish authorities told the hearing that just 1,500 were affected between 1940 and 1985, and around 350 of them are alive. The main reason was to achieve vaginal delivery.
There were no maternal deaths in the three Dublin maternity hospitals that performed the procedure, compared to 0.73% for caesarian section.
The €32m compensation scheme meant women would no longer have the stress of pursuing court cases, it was claimed.
Ms Fitzgerald said the Government profoundly regretted the very serious and damaging effect it had on the women and their families and hoped the payment would bring closure.
Symphysiotomy carried out after a caesarian section “was indefensible and wrong”, she said, and was not in keeping with the best medical practice at the time.
Asked about consent, she said it was obtained from some women, but said this must be put in the historical context of the time, while in other cases it was part of an emergency procedure.
Mr Rodley was equally critical of the State’s laws on abortion, and especially the failure to provide abortion as an option for women whose health is at risk, those who have been raped, and those carrying a foetus that will not survive.
